Follow by Email

About

What is contrastive analysis hypothesis in SLA? What are its major limitations?

Contrastive analysis is a systematic
study of comparison between two languages: the native language (L1) and the
target language (L2). Researchers from the 1940s to the 1960s conducted
contrastive analyses, systematically comparing two languages. They were
motivated by the prospect of being able to identify points of similarity and
difference between L1 and L2. In this connection, the researchers made some
assumptions. In accordance with their assumptions, the researchers came into a
decision that the main difficulties in learning a new language/ target language
(TL) are caused by the interference of the native language(NL). This
interference is called the L1 interference. Contrastive analysis(CA) can
predict these difficulties which a learner faces in learning the TL. In his
classic work Linguistics Across Cultures, Robert Lado attributes our
difficulties and errors in learning TL or a foreign language to the
interference of our native language(NL) or mother language (L1).

Whereever the structure of the
target language(TL) differs from that of the native language (NL), the learner
faces both difficulty in learning and error in performance. Successful learning
and appreciable command over the target language is absolutely dependent on
learning to overcome these difficulties. Where the structures of the two
languages are identical, the learner does not face any substantial difficulty. Difficulty
arises where there are structural differences between TL and NL. Teaching needs
to be directed at the points of structural dissimilarities. Speaking in
mathematical term, difficulty is proportionate to difference between languages.
But this difficulty can be lessened to a substantial extent by carrying out a
comparative study between the target language (TL) and the native (NL) or L1
and L2. This comparative study between TL and NL is dubbed as Contrast
Analysis(C.A) C.A is of immense worth in predicting the difficulties of the
learner. This determines what the learners have to learn and what the teacher
has to teach. The teaching materials of L2 can also make use of CA to reduce
the effects of interference. The results of CA are therefore, built into the
fabric of language teaching materials, syllabuses, tests and research.
Different text books will have to be produced for each language group. So, it
is obviously evident that especially from the pedagogic point of view,
Contrastive Analysis bears concrete weight in language learning and teaching.

According to Charles Fries,
comparing a scientific description of L2 with a parallel description of L1 is
the most efficient material in SLA. From the
hypothetical point view, individuals or learners tend to transfer the forms and
meanings and the distribution of forms and meanings of their native language
and culture to the foreign language and culture- both productively and
receptively.

All difficulties or differences in
SLA or in learning the target language(TL) are not equal. There is a degree of
difficulties as well as degree of easiness. Where two languages are similar
positive transfer occurs and where they are different, negative transfer, or
interference is resulted. Eminent linguists Stockwell, Bowen and Marlin
developed a hierarchy of difficulties on the basis of this hypothesis. This is
known as the Hierarchy of Difficulties.

Contrastive Analysis has two
aspects-psychological and linguistic. The psychological aspect is based upon
the behaviourist theory. Behaviourist theory/ behaviourism is a theory of
psychology which states that human and animal behaviour can and should be
studied in psychological process only. And the linguistic aspect is based upon
structuralist linguistics. It is an approach to linguistics which stresses the
importance of language as a system and which investigates the place those
linguistic units such as sounds, words, and sentences have within this system.

The association of CAH with
behaviourism gave it academic legitimacy. The behaviourists hold that language
acquisition was a product of habit formation. Habits were constructed through
the repeated association between some stimulus and some response. Second
language learning was viewed as a process of overcoming the habit of L1 in
order to acquire new habits of L2. But ironically, behaviourism led the CAH to
its downfall. With Chomsky’s attack on the behaviourist view of language
acquisition in his classic review of Skinner’s Verbal Behaviour, the
behaviourist view fell into disorder.

The CAH exists in two forms: strong
version and weak version. Wardaugh proposed a distinction between a strong
version and a weak version of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis(CAH). The
strong version of CAH claims that all L2 errors can be predicted by identifying
the differences between L1 and L2. The strong version of CAH is clearly based
upon a priori contrastive analysis of the L1 and L2. The predictions are,
however not always borne out. On the contrary, the weak version of the CAH is
based upon on a posterior investigation. This is, by nature diagnostic. It is
utilized in identifying which errors are the results of interference.
Researchers start with learner’s errors and explain them by pointing to the
similarities and differences between the two languages. It possesses a
“posteriori”, explanatory power. As the weak version of CAH can be used to
identify errors, CA needs to walk hand in hand with error analysis(EA). First
actual errors must be identified by analyzing a corpus/ discourse of L1. Then a
contrastive analysis can be used to establish which error in the corpus can be
put down to find the difficulties between L1 and L2.

There are some limitations in
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. As behaviourism as a theory fails, Contrastive
Analysis Hypothesis also fails. It ceases to exist. CA is not effective in all
responses. CA is directly originated from behaviourism/ stimulus response
theory. Contrastive analysis suffers from under prediction and over prediction.
It cannot find out the errors which are committed by the learners due to
overgeneralization. CA is inadequate to predict the interference problems of a
language learner. No uniformity is evident in Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. CA
is unable to account for the failures or the success of the learners. CA does
not analyze the language acquisition process in all the ways. It only analyzes
with linguistic approach. Thus Contrastive Analysis is a partial approach. It
is not acceptable as it cannot give a total idea of language acquisition. It
does not say anything about psychological factors.